From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f196.google.com (mail-wr0-f196.google.com [209.85.128.196]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6E711BDA2 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 14:55:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wr0-f196.google.com with SMTP id v60so4290977wrc.7 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 05:55:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=tJoHOTK2kCdNqDQG5n7xqXJmRUmheSu0GLb78YIHprY=; b=eFvJsiVnGV8XRRv+BZlUNrDRZYscgIbZZHsxo8+MqRI1uu2PNZVNwQShcPRGWd/rFG sxgj+xPc6lEqs4gX8QmnXOKyrt2UKZZlDrA1G/xdcWrqClhBSXSSua/7UkFElAqbs28i n3qEwwH/C3+dvNnL6rGLd12OukCSU6pYVdOjbkMvlcx150IurMvRcCcYHzS/gtPrqEdC YpFfErXsspFFc/kr2oZAkG5TMIXC7eWuv/3GlQantAFTlQBuoVofjOSny+iSJJfwLL/q GmChvhCCct2Poz+Rf3r4oBURF0sVkdI3MrPpNeENgTtOEJNzzq6dGHRkS+4/tg1SEfa/ jisQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=tJoHOTK2kCdNqDQG5n7xqXJmRUmheSu0GLb78YIHprY=; b=bTwpbtnrM85Mvh3QkkzvtRnPl8xH4GRlmGww4GD/s/Dah+UcWh0EyxSmE/A6ubl9WT nrW47s2MnDmvy4cy16D03Nd42oktz2gc8ODh4Fg721Lt9PKU/I66MJM8SkD2mtz3WJKv 4+xni9V8wDoWCTPwvpJ4usTX7INlH+Ir2Nf7ZfI3Jx89+MkaB9yr1PPfXFyQUwP+yTRJ q2usoXh014O66tT8Dx4j/4JglUVQzksiR1AZal8OdnVGN3GcT5m5i0AjYCajlArmMaDK pADccatfhRT8nlllFMNyK+V05RrgXP3Fa1+g9eFE4KPdN39m4Pogq8BnESsZqIAS86fI vzEg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tBMGIHfgRlJp5Hd0PRCSwGdcHAtzhUjMZolUqwMld0lpeMk5Ujy luIetRvDK2cq3Bg1FhkEUwhYHscI X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4+ohRiVc17nCa0CMJPZham6xCAO4G4nAl2Jndmw0tCBL/b1PIT57lKU+ZmCDQHPNeiA1Id5FA== X-Received: by 10.223.153.45 with SMTP id x42mr2657561wrb.145.1523624126136; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 05:55:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bidouze.vm.6wind.com (host.78.145.23.62.rev.coltfrance.com. [62.23.145.78]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 80sm2211011wmk.46.2018.04.13.05.55.25 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Fri, 13 Apr 2018 05:55:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 14:55:11 +0200 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ga=EBtan?= Rivet To: Shreyansh Jain Cc: Neil Horman , dev@dpdk.org Message-ID: <20180413125511.p2xhkc2355lohwqs@bidouze.vm.6wind.com> References: <3c46c7947bec6462e07a6c33e39f680c8d9e688b.1523404469.git.gaetan.rivet@6wind.com> <20180412112826.GA8105@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> <20180412215747.f5ga5dh6rfoqx46l@bidouze.vm.6wind.com> <20180413114246.GB1699@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 02/21] eal: list acceptable init priorities X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 12:55:26 -0000 Hi Shreyansh, On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 06:22:43PM +0530, Shreyansh Jain wrote: > On Friday 13 April 2018 05:12 PM, Neil Horman wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:57:47PM +0200, Gaëtan Rivet wrote: > > > Hello Neil, > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 07:28:26AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 02:04:03AM +0200, Gaetan Rivet wrote: > > > > > Build a central list to quickly see each used priorities for > > > > > constructors, allowing to verify that they are both above 100 and in the > > > > > proper order. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Gaetan Rivet > > > > > Acked-by: Neil Horman > > > > > Acked-by: Shreyansh Jain > > > > > --- > > > > > lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_log.c | 2 +- > > > > > lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_bus.h | 2 +- > > > > > lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_common.h | 8 +++++++- > > > > > 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_log.c b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_log.c > > > > > index a27192620..36b9d6e08 100644 > > > > > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_log.c > > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_log.c > > > > > @@ -260,7 +260,7 @@ static const struct logtype logtype_strings[] = { > > > > > }; > > > > > /* Logging should be first initializer (before drivers and bus) */ > > > > > -RTE_INIT_PRIO(rte_log_init, 101); > > > > > +RTE_INIT_PRIO(rte_log_init, LOG); > > > > > static void > > > > > rte_log_init(void) > > > > > { > > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_bus.h b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_bus.h > > > > > index 6fb08341a..eb9eded4e 100644 > > > > > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_bus.h > > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_bus.h > > > > > @@ -325,7 +325,7 @@ enum rte_iova_mode rte_bus_get_iommu_class(void); > > > > > * The constructor has higher priority than PMD constructors. > > > > > */ > > > > > #define RTE_REGISTER_BUS(nm, bus) \ > > > > > -RTE_INIT_PRIO(businitfn_ ##nm, 110); \ > > > > > +RTE_INIT_PRIO(businitfn_ ##nm, BUS); \ > > > > > static void businitfn_ ##nm(void) \ > > > > > {\ > > > > > (bus).name = RTE_STR(nm);\ > > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_common.h b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_common.h > > > > > index 6c5bc5a76..8f04518f7 100644 > > > > > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_common.h > > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_common.h > > > > > @@ -81,6 +81,12 @@ typedef uint16_t unaligned_uint16_t; > > > > > */ > > > > > #define RTE_SET_USED(x) (void)(x) > > > > > +#define RTE_PRIORITY_LOG 101 > > > > > +#define RTE_PRIORITY_BUS 110 > > > > > + > > > > > +#define RTE_PRIO(prio) \ > > > > > + RTE_PRIORITY_ ## prio > > > > > + > > > > > /** > > > > > * Run function before main() with low priority. > > > > > * > > > > > @@ -102,7 +108,7 @@ static void __attribute__((constructor, used)) func(void) > > > > > * Lowest number is the first to run. > > > > > */ > > > > > #define RTE_INIT_PRIO(func, prio) \ > > > > > -static void __attribute__((constructor(prio), used)) func(void) > > > > > +static void __attribute__((constructor(RTE_PRIO(prio)), used)) func(void) > > > > It just occured to me, that perhaps you should add a RTE_PRORITY_LAST priority, > > > > and redefine RTE_INIT to RTE_INIT_PRIO(func, RTE_PRIORITY_LAST) for clarity. I > > > > presume that constructors with no explicit priority run last, but the gcc > > > > manual doesn't explicitly say that. It would be a heck of a bug to track down > > > > if somehow unprioritized constructors ran early. > > > > > > > > Neil > > > > > > > > > > While certainly poorly documented, the behavior is well-defined. I don't see > > > a situation where the bug you describe could arise. > > > > > > Adding RTE_PRIORITY_LAST is pretty harmless, but I'm not sure it's > > > justified to add it. If you still think it is useful, I will do it. > > > > > It was more just a way to unify the macros is all, probably not important. > > > > > I'd be curious to hear if anyone has had issues of this kind. > > > > > I've not had any, but I was suprised to see that the gcc manual didn't > > explicitly call out the implied priority of unprioritized constructors > > I (tried to) looked into the gcc code base. It seems that when priority is > not defined, DEFAULT_INIT_PRIORITY 65536, is used. > > --->8--- gcc/collect2.c --- > /* Extract init_p number from ctor/dtor name. */ > pri = atoi (name + pos); > return pri ? pri : DEFAULT_INIT_PRIORITY; > --->8--- > > Though, I couldn't find any documentation for this fact - and, I can never > be confident about gcc code. > > I found one of the ARM compiler (clang) does has a policy for using > non-specified priority as lower than specified priority. [1] > > [1] https://developer.arm.com/docs/dui0774/latest/compiler-specific-function-variable-and-type-attributes/__attribute__constructorpriority-function-attribute > > A specified value for RTE_PRIORITY_LAST is not a bad option - it would help > in keeping the priorities bound without relying on the unknown of priority > for unspecified constructors. This is interesting, thanks for looking up the GCC code. Ok, unless someone has a strong reason not to, I will add RTE_PRIORITY_LAST. Not really convinced about it but not opposed enough either :) . Regards, -- Gaëtan Rivet 6WIND